Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Burbank Expansion Possibilities  
User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

If anyone knows:

I know that Burbank Airport is not the roomiest airport in the world, but....say an airline decided to fly there with about 20-30 departures a day. Would there be enough gate space to accomodate this many additional flights? Anyone familiar with gate space....or remote areas where planes can be parked and loaded?

Thank you!

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

There's barely enough gate space there for the traffic they receive already.

Space? You're lookin' at it:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivian A Watts



As for expansion - that's a big NIMBY "no".



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineWGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

You know its funny, I pass by Burbank very frequently, every time I take the train down to LA. There is a Metrolink commuter train station right across the street from the airport, and that makes BUR super-convenient in my opinion. By train, it is a mere 20 minutes from downtown, and a mere 45 minutes from my house (which is conveniently close to another Metrolink station).

However, unfortunately the area around BUR is extremely built up. It is surrounded on all sides by shops, offices and industrial areas. So there is relatively little room for expansion of the airport. However, I do hope that the terminals are rebuilt soon. At present, there are no jetways, and neither Terminal A, which is the elongated building that most airlines use, or Terminal B, the high-tech metal shed used by United and American, have them. I would like to see both terminals over time demolished and replaced by larger, more modern terminals that are fully equipped with jetways (while of course leaving the historic original building and control tower intact).

Interestingly enough, I believe United was the airline that built Burbank in the first place, so it is fitting that it remains served by that airline.

-WGW2707


User currently offlinePsa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Park them(aircraft) on Empire with the
cars. Thats the only place.(lol)



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Thanks for the info guys! Very helpful  Smile

User currently offlineAtcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

WOW

That is the runway right next to the terminal. No taxiway or at least a grass area like at other airports. That is really close!


User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Flyboyaz,
just a little more info...There was a plan to build a brand new terminal on a portion of land once occupied by the Lockheed-Burbank manufacturing plant.
The land went into escrow...just had to be purchased by the Burbanl/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Authority. Unfortunately, the process was bogged down by politics. The Burbank City Council wanted to (a) limit the number gates - original plan was 19, the limit would have been 14; (b) The city council wanted to impose a mandatory night-curfew at BUR. While there seemed to be some compromise on the number of gates, there wasn't any on the curfew issue. Both sides (Airport Auth. and City Council) took hard lines and subsequently went to court. Ultimately an impasse was declared. The date escrow was set to close passed. More than likely, that land will be slated for mixed use industrial/commercial use. The FAA, which had granted BUR monies toward the purchase has demanded that the monies be returned. Last I recall, there was some question as to whether BUR would be able to return the full amount, as somehow, BUR had spent a considerable portion of it.
Problem with the L. A. area in general...hard, if not impossible, to reach consensus on major infrastructure issues.



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Yes I remember reading about that Aaway. It's too bad, because BUR is in a great location as an alternative to LAX. I just wasn't sure if someone could fly there and be able to park their planes without much trouble...in between the big boys!

Thanks!


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Aaway way to go! Thanks for all that great updated info on BUR! Wasn't it actually called United Airport at one time? When I showed up it was PSA, Hughes Air West and Continental. I think good ol' PSA keep BUR alive after LAX expanded. WN has taken over that role.

The terminal at BUR is only 300 feet from the runway! That is about as close as I have seen in the 250 airports I have checked out and from a spotters point of view ranks as one of my favorites. I took a picture of the model of the proposed terminal that was to be built on the Lockheed site and I think all they wanted to do was make the airport safer, not add more gates in the process. But people think if they can keep an airport unsafe, it will go away. Anyway, I think that is the reasoning. Who knows!

As for adding flights at BUR, I think you can probably fit in some commuter flights into BUR with Dash-8s and the like. But no more jets unless you coordinate your "3 flight a day" schedule and use an existing airlines' gate. Etching out one gate for 12-15 Dash-8 flights to near-by cities (SAN, FAT, MRY) should be possible, however, for a little intrastate carrier. If your thinking BIG, I'd say forget it!



Uncle SAN at your service!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SQ Airlines Future Expansion Possibilities posted Fri Aug 11 2006 03:02:55 by Dellatorre
DCA Expansion Possibilities posted Wed Aug 6 2003 19:30:05 by US A333 PIT
in reference to 'Go-ahead For Heathrow Expansion' article posted Fri Dec 8 2006 20:05:12 by Itsonlyme
SWF Looking At Terminal Expansion posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:02:20 by BigOrange
Stansted Expansion Plan Refused posted Wed Nov 29 2006 19:42:47 by Foxy
Regional Airport Expansion posted Mon Nov 27 2006 04:37:55 by Centrair
Flybe Expansion For Summer 2007 posted Sat Nov 25 2006 01:11:16 by SQNo1
Saudi Arabian Airlines Expansion In Europe? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 23:59:13 by GayrugbyMAN
Brussels Airlines' 767 Long Haul Expansion posted Tue Nov 21 2006 12:00:26 by A330DAT
Edmonton Int'l Approved For $200 Mln Expansion posted Mon Nov 20 2006 02:00:11 by Kevin